https://www.blueorigin.com/news#youtube74tyedGkoUc

Two month turn around. Elon, you're retort?





Edit: Yes, I'm aware this is orders of magnitude less than was SpaceX is trying to accomplish, but its a damn fine proof of concept.

his retort should be to just post this on twitter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1JgMxRm--0

These the same guys that landed it back on the barge?

No. OP even talks about that in his edit......

I think Elon would have two retorts:

1) Good for them!! That's exactly why he gets into industries like these. It's the same with Tesla; he is trying to provoke the establishment to push forward at a more rapid pace, so it's a win for SpaceX as much as it is for Bezos.

2) It doesn't change what SpaceX is doing, not in the slightest. Both concepts can and will work concurrently. SpaceX's design is for much much larger payloads, while the Blue Origin model can be used for smaller projects.

In any case, this is a major win for the Private Sector spacerace, and it's going to mean good things for everyone.

Tella sighting!

Mod abuse!

I'll admit, there is a temptation to edit heston's post into a fanboi post with the reason "mod abuse"

You are aware that SpaceX landed and successfully static fired one of their reused rockets.

As far as the CA landing the only reason they did it at sea was because they didn't have a landing pad to use. Also they did manage to land it just one of the locks on the landing legs failed and that was on one of their older rockets as well.

Blue Origins rocket can't go as high, as far or as fast. They may have been the first to land the first stage of a rocket but they have a long way to go before SpaceX is in danger of losing business.

Considering that the current state of the art on rocket construction hasn't really gotten to the point that whatever is left of the rocket booster is the cheapest part of the vehicle, it doesn't make economic sense to go through the trouble of saving the shell of the rocket, they are only going to have to rebuild the damned thing anyway. What do they actually save? It can't be more than 10% of the cost of building the thing in the first place.

I think that the next technological breakthrough has to be a way of reducing the cost of the fuel and/or method of propulsion rather than saving scraps so that you don't have to buy more inexpensive materials such as were used in the construction of the rocket motor in the first place.

they arnt competing for the same contracts....